W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

Re: what RDF is not (was Re: RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) W3C Working Draft published)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 06:45:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3C257D84.6000703@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mmoran@netphysic.com, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

> (I think that
> even your second mechanism, without appropriate disclaimers, can mislead
> users into thinking that RDF can do more than it really can.)

This seems to be the heart of the disagreement (if any).

I tend to regard RDF as an assembly language for information.
Like assembly you can do many things, but also like assembly, it isn't 
really the appropriate level to work at for almost everything.

In the example we are talking about RDF really is being used to 
represent shared descriptions; and Peter is quite right to say that RDF 
does not support this - but it doesn't stop us giving certain predicates 
that reading.

Peter's apparant position is understandable as a reaction to the hype, 
but strikes me as being as one-sided as the hype he is reacting to.

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 04:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:33 UTC